Accused person

The term "  accused" has not been specifically defined in the code but what we generally  understand   is

that   the  accused   means   the  person charged  with an infringement
of the law for which he is liable and  if convicted then to be punished.

RIGHT OF ACCUSED PERSON

A person under the custody of the police or under-trial possess does not lose his fundamental rights and
human rights merely because of incarceration. This is based on the principle that “hundreds of guilty
persons may get scot-free but one innocent should not be punished.”

The Criminal jurisprudence provides immense protection to the accused person which is expressly given
under the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The accused should be treated as innocent until proven
guilty by the prosecution. The legal protection available to the accused person is based on one of the
cardinal principles of “presumption of innocence.” The principle provides that there is always a
presumption of innocence lie on behalf of the accused person and he is always presumed to be innocent
until the prosecution proves his guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. The legal protection is a statutory
right of the accused

The legal protection is a statutory right of the accused person which is enshrined under the Indian
Constitution as well as different provisions of criminal law. These rights are available during the trial, at
the time of arrest and at the time of the search, and seizure, etc. These rights should not be prejudiced
to protect the rights of the victim.

In, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B (1997) 1 SCC 416,the Supreme Court, in this case, issued some guidelines
which were required to be mandatorily followed in all cases of arrest or detention which include, the
arresting authority should bear accurate, visible, and clear identification along with their name tags with
their designation, the memo be signed by the arrestee and family member, the family or the friend must
be told about the arrest of the accused, The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during
interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation and many other.

The accused persons are also granted certain rights, the most basic of which are found in the Indian
Constitution. An accused has certain rights during the course of any investigation; enquiry or trial of
offence with which he is charged, and he should be protected against arbitrary or illegal arrest.

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT PRETRIAL STAGE

The accused person has every right
like other citizen of the country except his curtailment of person liberty in
conformity with laws. The basic difference is that an accusation has been
made against the accused person for violation of law or offence prevalent in
the country.  The rights of the accused person are of much concern today.

Belatedly though, it has been observed the  blatant and flagrant violation

of their rights in different stages.  The implication of  article Art. 21 of  the

Constitution  of  India  is that  a  person  could  be  deprived  of  his   life or

personal liberty only in accordance with procedure established by law. As

per  Art. 22 of C.O.I., a person who is arrested for whatever reason, gets

three independent rights. 

•The first is the right to be told or informed thereasons for the arrest as soon as an arrest is made, 

•The second is the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours and 

•The third is the right to be defended by an advocate of his choice.

In, Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani 1978 SCR (3) 608,wherein it was held that no one can forcibly extract
statements from the accused and that the accused has the right to keep silent during the course of
interrogation (investigation).

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT DURING A TRIAL

Rights of accused, in law, the rights and privileges of a person accused of a crime, guaranteeing him a
fair trial.

1)Right to be discharged when no sufficient ground

As per section 227 of CrPC, when the judge is convinced that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused after duly considering the case, it is the right of the accused that he be discharged.

2)Right to present evidence

According to section 243(1) of CrPC, the accused has the right to present his evidence and defend his
case. The magistrate is duty bound to record written statements put by the accused.

3)Right to be present when evidence is taken

Section 273 of CrPC makes it obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to ensure that all evidence taken in
the course of the other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused or, when his personal
attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.

4)Right to be defended

Section 303 of CrPC and Article 22(1) of the constitution of India provides a right to all the accused
persons, to be defended by a pleader of his choice.

5)Right to cross-examination witnesses

Section 311 of CrPC gives the accused (and the prosecution) full right to cross examine a witness called
by the Court.

6)Bail as the rights of accused in India

The right of an accused person allows them to file a bail application to be released from jail custody.
There are three kinds of bail under Indian law- anticipatory bail, interi

Post-Trial Rights of the Accused Person

An accused person also has certain rights once his trial is over. These rights of the accused depend upon
the outcome of his trial. This means, whether (s)he has been acquitted by the court or has been held
guilty and arrested by police.

1)Rights of the Accused, if declared innocent

When a person is declared innocent and acquitted by the court, the following rights are given to him:

Accused persons have a right to get a copy of the judgment

Right to receive protection from police if there are reasons to believe there is a threat to his life post-
acquittal

UNDER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The constitution of India provides legal protection to the accused person to uphold the fundamental
rights of an individual so that procedure laid down under criminal law should be ‘right, just and fair’ and
not in any oppressive and arbitrary manner. It is necessary to provide legal protection to the accused
person during the trial to grant him free and fair trial without misuse of powers by the government
authorities.

In the case of Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan (1981), the court held that the Indian
constitution, evidentiary and procedural laws have consist of elaborate provisions regarding the legal
protection of the rights of an accused person during the trial and to protect his human dignity and
providing him benefits of a just, fair and impartial trial by the court of law.

Right to life and liberty

Article 21 of the constitution of India provides that no accused shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except in accordance with procedure established law which is just, fair and reasonable. This
article also provides that the accused has the right to free and speedy trial.

Protection against Ex-Post-Facto Law

Article 20 (1) of the Indian Constitution protects an accused person against ex-post-facto law. The court
has no power to hold the accused guilty of any action when he committed was not an offence under IPC
or any other specific law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 under Article 11, paragraph 2
also provides freedom from ex-post-facto laws. However, this protection is given to the accused person
against conviction or sentence for a criminal offence and not against the trial before the court of law.
Thus, if the trial of an accused person is held under a different procedure after the commission of an act
cannot be ipso facto be held unconstitutional.

In the case of Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (1954), the accused committed an offence in 1947,
where he was punishable for imprisonment or fine or both. However, the Act amended in 1949 which
provides punishment of fine equivalent to the amount of money he received by committing that
particular offence. The Supreme Court held that the amendment Act of 1949 did not apply to accused as
it was considered as the ex-post-facto law. The court also observed that an enhancement in the
punishment of an offence cannot be applicable to the accused subsequently and accused can take
advantage of the beneficial provisions of the ex-post-facto law.

Right against double-jeopardy

As per article 20(2) of constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same
offence more than once.

The concept of double jeopardy is based on the legal maxim “Nemo debut bi’s punibi prouno delicto”
which means that no one should be punished twice for the same offence or same fault.

In the case of Natarajan v. State (2005), the Supreme Court observed that “person who has once been
tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted for such offence
shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same
offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made
against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have
been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”

Right against self-incrimination

As per article 20(3) of constitution of India, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.

In the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), the Supreme Court observed the following
essentials. (a) It is a right pertaining to a person who is “accused of an offence” (b) It is a protection
against “compulsion to be a witness” and (c) It is a protection against such compulsion relating to his
giving evidence “against himself.”

Legal aid to the accused in criminal law

Article 39-A of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to free legal to the accused due to poverty
and indigent reasons where he has no means to appoint or engage a counsel for the defence before the
court of law. The state is under the constitutional obligation to provide free legal aid to the accused
person under Article 21 which is explicit under Article 39-A of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Sukh Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986),

the Supreme Court held that it is the duty and responsibility of the state to provide free legal to accused
if he has no means to engage a counsel to promote a free and fair trial before the court of law and
without affecting the principle of natural justice.
the case of Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), the Supreme Court held that the state is under the
constitutional mandate and obligation to provide free legal aid to the poor and indigent person to
uphold his basic human rights and the principle of natural justice by giving a free and fair trial.

Therefore, the right to free legal aid is a basic fundamental right to secure free and fair trial before the
court of law and to uphold the principle of natural justice. It is provided by the constitution of India that
justice and fair trial should be available to the accused during all the stages of criminal proceedings.

In the case of Sheela Barse v. the State of Maharashtra (1987), the Supreme Court held that whenever a
person is arrested by the police and taken to the police lock-up, the police will immediately give an
intimation of the fact of such arrest to the nearest Legal Aid Committee and such Legal Aid Committee
will take immediate steps to provide legal assistance to the arrested person at State cost provided he is
willing to accept such legal assistance.

Conclusion

The Law of India was structured in such a way that even if the person accused is found to be guilty by
the Court of Trial he/she should not claim that they were not heard properly and provided the equal
chance to present themselves. In a Criminal Matter, there are equal rights provided to an accused
person for protection against the illegal procedure of investigation and trial. The Constitution of India
and the Criminal procedure code both provides a handful of rights to all the persons involved in a
criminal proceeding. Fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence also provide for the fair and
reasonable investigation of the accused. It is the duty of the state to preserve the constitution of India
and make certain amendments to the law which are prima facie in violation of rule of law.